Marshall-Barnes-Inte.. - American Antigravity
Marshall-Barnes-Inte.. - American Antigravity
Marshall-Barnes-Inte.. - American Antigravity
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>American</strong> <strong>Antigravity</strong>.Com Page 1 of 12
Inside The Philadelphia Experiment<br />
<strong>Marshall</strong> <strong>Barnes</strong> on the Philadelphia Experiment<br />
By Tim Ventura & <strong>Marshall</strong> <strong>Barnes</strong>, May 21st, 2005<br />
The Philadelphia Experiment has been one of the most enduring legends of the 20 th century, but after a<br />
decade of intense research, <strong>Marshall</strong> <strong>Barnes</strong> may have finally solved the puzzle. After a decade of<br />
research into the experiment, he offers new insight on just how this experiment may have occurred, as<br />
well as the lessons that we can draw from it for a new generation of advanced technology concepts…<br />
AAG: Let's give the readers some background on your expertise: as I understand things,<br />
you've been actively researching the Philadelphia Experiment for several years, and you've<br />
turned up enough leads on the topic that you're currently writing a tell-all book to try and<br />
educate people on what you've found. Can you tell us a bit more about your research &<br />
background?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: Several years? Try more than a decade. I began researching the Project Rainbow<br />
(otherwise known as the Philadelphia Experiment) in 1991. My first lecture on it was before the<br />
St. Louis MUFON UFO Day meeting in a hotel in St. Charles, MO that same year. That's where I<br />
first introduced the quantum mechanical connection to the Philadelphia Experiment's<br />
teleportation element - macroscopic quantum tunneling. Originally, the first thing I had looked<br />
into was the matter of invisibility and teleportation. I used physicists from the IBM Watson<br />
Research Center in up-state New York and at the Columbus Community College as sounding<br />
boards. I also eventually consulted with Fred Alan Wolf, PhD. In fact, Wolf confirmed the selfconsistency<br />
of my space-time diagrams which married the original Allende account with the<br />
(now known to be completely bogus) Al Bielek account. I was the first and only one to do that,<br />
again, trying to make sense and apply physics to this complicated story. What my chart showed<br />
is that 'if' both stories were true, it just so happened that because Bielek had invoked time travel<br />
then automatically there would be parallel universes involved. So when Bielek was allegedly "Ed<br />
Cameron" (which has now been proven to be a lie) he would have been in a parallel universe and<br />
so when he was age regressed and sent backward in time, he would have also been in a parallel<br />
universe - on our timeline. So as he grew-up to serve in the Navy as Al Bielek, another version of<br />
Project Rainbow would have been happening - the one known to be linked with Carlos Allende.<br />
Bielek, however, because he doesn't understand how all these spacetime theories would work<br />
and has only memorized what Tom Bearden and others talk about, which isn't exactly the same<br />
area, didn't get it. He had taught himself one way of addressing the story and kept to it, even<br />
adding that stolen photo from the Princeton year book, which led to his being exposed as a fraud<br />
and his eventual downfall.<br />
At any rate, all the physics sources that I used confirmed my suspicions that the classic<br />
description used in the William Moore/Charles Berlitz book (which was not cited to them)<br />
matched what would be viewed as "macroscopic quantum tunneling". I was the first to describe<br />
the teleportation portion of the story that way and it was published in an article in the 1993<br />
Spring issue of Unicus Magazine. Those individuals and publications that say that the ship<br />
"dematerialized and rematerialized" are not only misquoting the original account of the legend,<br />
the physics behind such a description are impossible now, let alone in 1943.<br />
For the record, I've been the only one who has actively engaged all elements of this very<br />
complicated story - the Navy, the crew, the skeptics the media and even Bielek and others in the<br />
lunatic fringe. If you check, you won't find anyone else that has confronted the Navy at all, let<br />
alone the way I have - exposing their hand picked point man, John Reilly for lying, and getting<br />
<strong>American</strong> <strong>Antigravity</strong>.Com Page 2 of 12
him to admit that nothing that the Navy nor the military would say about the Philadelphia<br />
Experiment would be consequential, since if it was real, they wouldn't admit to it. He of course<br />
turned right around and proved that they would actually go beyond not admitting to it, but<br />
would lie about it. He did so by his lying to me about not knowing anything about Area 51. The<br />
government says that it doesn't exist, but of course it does. He said he had never heard about it<br />
because he's not a "nuclear test buff". That's funny, since in my discussions with him (which<br />
were legally tape recorded) I never mentioned the word "nuclear", yet if you look on a map of<br />
Nevada, Area 51 lies in the NE corner of the Nevada Nuclear Test Site. Also, in the late '90s, Area<br />
51 employees tried to sue the government over their exposures to nuclear waste and other exotic<br />
materials and Bill Clinton denied them that right to sue. If Reilly had never heard of Area 51,<br />
then why on Earth would he have made such a link in the first place, which just simultaneously<br />
proves how stupid skeptics are who believe the Navy's denials about this whole affair.<br />
In my CD package, “Inside The Philadelphia Experiment”, you can hear the entire conversation<br />
with Reilly for yourself. The booklet that comes with it, as well as my new complete book also<br />
introduces further evidence against the Public Affairs Office of the Office of Naval Research from<br />
back in the late 1990s. You don't see anyone else going head to head against the cover-up this<br />
way. I've similarly taken on the media - Sci Fi Channel's “Sightings”, A&E's “The Unexplained”<br />
and for the first time ever, my book will reveal the behind the scenes dirty dealing that went on<br />
with the History Channel's “History's Mysteries”, which will explain that totally lop-sided<br />
production they did on the Philadelphia Experiment. “Action Report: Inside The Philadelphia<br />
Experiment”, is the CD documentary addresses that as well with the first ever candid tape<br />
recorded conversations with the crew of the Eldrige.<br />
So my background with this legend is as multifaceted as it gets and has required my learning<br />
and employing elements, concepts and tactics from physics, research and development<br />
engineering, investigative journalism, counter-intelligence, and even psychological operations at<br />
times, all in an effort to accomplish one thing and one thing only - the verifiable truth about<br />
what happened, regardless of what that truth was or preference from whence it came. The<br />
evidence, and I repeat - the evidence which is plentiful, all points at one answer. That answer is<br />
that between 1940 and 1943, firms, university departments and elements of the U.S. military<br />
and its supporting civilian run agencies, engaged in prosecuting WWII, did in fact conceive and<br />
pursue a project that initially involved the idea of repelling incoming projectiles via the<br />
application of strong electromagnetic fields but quickly became the use of such fields to<br />
accomplish optical invisibility via induced mirages in the air and then radar invisibility. The<br />
possibility of teleportation was never considered and if in fact it did happen, it was a mistake.<br />
The tests for these effects were code named Project Rainbow and resulted, eventually in failure<br />
for the safety of the crews involved. It was mothballed until after the war when it was restarted<br />
and eventually successfully applied, in modified form, to the B2. The secrecy and cover-up,<br />
which has been sorely mismanaged and nonproductive, was due to intense foreign interest since<br />
the war, to the story, and fear that other governments would pursue this technological approach<br />
and gain the upper hand. The Soviets did, in fact, pursue it and have developed the practical<br />
applications. Simultaneously, there has been a strong connection between these events and the<br />
whole UFO controversy and in ways that no one has ever addressed or even considered. My<br />
book, It's Code Name:Rainbow, details this entire saga with hard evidence, which is the only<br />
thing that I have, from which to derive my conclusions. It is an unprecedented account and<br />
serves as an unauthorized sequel to the William Moore/Charles Berlitz book since at no time did<br />
the Moore/Berlitz account attempt to really substantiate any of its claims. Conversely, my book<br />
is almost 50% evidence in its raw form - documents, photographs, personal histories, and the<br />
rest is littered with verifiable references, quotes, and links to online sources. Simultaneously, it<br />
completely destroys all skeptical arguments against the story and it does so with scientifc facts,<br />
experimental results and, in a number of cases, even with historical evidence that was acquired<br />
from the Navy.<br />
<strong>American</strong> <strong>Antigravity</strong>.Com Page 3 of 12
I think that should about do it.<br />
AAG: Let's start with the skeptical viewpoint -- tales of "ghost-ships" have been a part of<br />
naval folklore for hundreds of years, and it's easy to believe that the Philadelphia Experiment is<br />
just a modernized retelling of the classic "Flying Dutchman" tale. So the big first question is this:<br />
did this experiment really happen?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: My book proves conclusively that using what passes now for "the skeptical<br />
viewpoint" is the biggest mistake anyone can make. Benjamin LeBlanc, Robert Todd Carroll,<br />
Mack Shelton, are just a few of the skeptics that I expose for deliberately misleading their<br />
readers, but to play along, I can prove my point right now with your 'skeptical' question - "it's<br />
easy to believe that the Philadelphia Experiment is just a modernized retelling of the classic<br />
"Flying Ducthman tale". My response is that if you want to know 'did this really happen', then<br />
what's tales of "ghost-ships" have to do with it? Those tales exist regardless. My point is that if<br />
someone wants to answer the question of if it was a true event or not, the place to start is with<br />
the account, which BTW never mentions anything that matches the classic ghost-ship tale. A<br />
ghost-ship is a ship that vanishes, meaning that it's been lost, not heard from, and then is<br />
discovered at some later date, abandoned with the crew missing as if they suddenly left in a<br />
hurry. Or its spotted in the distance and then slips away before anyone can ever board it and is<br />
said to be spotted occasionally but never within reach, for eons. There's no connection between<br />
such tales and the account of the Philadelphia Experiment. The ship was never lost for a long<br />
period, the crew was still onboard and there's no mystery about why there were problems. The<br />
line of questioning, as with all skeptical positions taken against this story, is flawed and<br />
irrelevant. The proof of that is the phrase that opened your query - "it's easy to believe". I<br />
couldn't care less about what's "easy" and I don't give a damn about "belief". There's been<br />
nothing easy about this investigation and it hasn't turned out the way that anybody believed it<br />
would, that includes me. What matters is the evidence and the methods used to acquire it. If<br />
skeptics behaved in the same manner as I have, they would have solved this thing themselves<br />
long ago, even exposed Al Bielek, but they didn't. Not one skeptic can claim credit about<br />
anything concerning this story. Even Gerold Schelm and Fred Houpt, who contributed toward<br />
the Bielek investigation, aren't skeptics because they both believe that the Philadelphia<br />
Experiment really happened. So that leaves the skeptics with a big fat zero. Think of those<br />
photos from the original Gulf War when the Iraqi Army was trying to flee Kuwait City with all<br />
that loot and what not. Remember what was left after the U.S. forces were done with them,<br />
that's what's left of every skeptic's arguments against this story after I deconstruct them in my<br />
book. I have an entire chapter dedicated to it, early on. Right after the one where I demolish the<br />
Navy's positions, sometimes with their own documents to boot.<br />
AAG: Investigator Jacques Vallee has been credited with "debunking" the Philadelphia<br />
Experiment story several years ago, but his primary source, a fellow named "Edward Dudgeon",<br />
has been called a fraud, which seems to have seriously undermined his skeptical analysis. Are<br />
you familiar with this story, and if so, what are your thoughts on Vallee's claims?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: Not only am I familiar with the claims, I'm the one that proved Dudgeon was a<br />
fraud! Besides, Vallee's so-called "analysis" was no such thing at all. If it were, why, as a<br />
scientist, did he completely ignore the Dr. Rinehart account from the Moore/Berlitz book, the<br />
one that has all the scientific data in it? Not a single word about that. Not only that, Vallee's<br />
published version of the article was "cleaned" by Rear Admiral Houser (ret) to whom Vallee<br />
admits handing the article over for having its "accuracy checked". I know the article was cleaned<br />
because key testimony that Ed Dudgeon gave on a cable TV show from the History Channel was<br />
missing from the print version. That testimony was about how Dudgeon claims he saw Saint<br />
Elmo's Fire make a ship invisible just like Allende describes it. In the Anatomy article, it<br />
<strong>American</strong> <strong>Antigravity</strong>.Com Page 4 of 12
mentions Saint Elmo's Fire making the ship's glow green but nothing about the attendent<br />
invisibility. The clincher is that the TV show was done before the article, which raises the<br />
question as to why the invisibility account isn't in the article. That answer is simple - because it<br />
flys in the face of the official Navy position posited in the ONR letter which states that<br />
experiments in invisibility are only possible in the realm of science fiction. If Saint Elmo's Fire<br />
can make a ship invisible then we could figure that out as well, and there goes that good use of a<br />
natural phenomena to explain away the story, the way UFO skeptics explain away UFO accounts<br />
with swamp gas and the planet Venus. Skeptics are inherently stupid and their stupidity is based<br />
in fear - fear of the unknown. As a result, they'll buy anything that makes their knee-jerk<br />
objections to anything innovative or interesting sound like they're based in science. It's pathetic,<br />
because I've found during my investigation of Project Rainbow that the skeptics have never<br />
applied the scientific method itself, let alone address the scientific claims in the Moore/Berlitz<br />
book that were contained in the Dr. Rinehart interview. Exactly the opposite - they either<br />
ignored it or assisted in its suppression.<br />
Houser, on the other hand, was engaging in an official cover-up and wasn't being "skeptical". He<br />
was in counter-intelligence mode. There were Navy regulations in force that he knew of that<br />
demanded that he act that way. Vallee implicates him inadvertantly by saying that he had<br />
Houser check the story for "accuracy". So if there's that detail missing, which Vallee was directly<br />
involved with promoting on the program when he asked Dudgeon, "was there anything unusual<br />
that happened..." and Dudgeon begins to talk about "the only thing unusual that happened was<br />
when the look-out was up on the flying bridge and he saw the St. Elmo's Fire...", then Houser<br />
must have had that info removed from the printed version of the account. Vallee says that<br />
Houser was given the article to check it, I have to consider that Houser looked at it and said,<br />
"Whoa. If we can't make a ship invisible, how's St. Elmo's Fire going to do it? That's a problem.<br />
We can't have that in there."<br />
Aside from that, Dudgeon lied about the ship's going out on shakedown together. I can say that<br />
because it's the Navy records, oddly enough, that make a liar out of Dudgeon. If you check the<br />
launch dates, something that Vallee should have done if, as you say, he was doing any kind of<br />
'analysis', you find that the Engstrom, Dudgeon's ship, was launched when he said, and went on<br />
shakedown along with the other two ships but not the Eldridge. It wasn't even finished being<br />
built yet. I also talked to a crew mate of Dudgeon's who was on the Engstrom at the time (which<br />
can also be heard on Inside The Philadelphia Experiment) and he doesn't agree with Dudgeon's<br />
account at all. I also never mentioned to that gentleman, anything about the Philadelphia<br />
Experiment, so it's not like he was defending the legend. I was trying to verify the aspects of<br />
Dudgeon's story in as far as the events surrounding the Engstrom are concerned.<br />
AAG: In 1994 Dr. James Corum wrote a historical analysis of the Philadelphia Experiment<br />
that made an honest attempt to show involvement by Vannevar Bush & Albert Einstein. Also, it<br />
suggests that Bush was working on the project using ideas developed by Tesla, which sounds like<br />
a WW-II "dream team" almost too good to be true. Do you think that these individuals<br />
participated in the experiment, and can you tell us if any other notable scientists make cameo<br />
appearances in the story?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: Tesla doesn't seem to have had any direct connection to the project because he<br />
was too sickly. He is completely absent from any records that I found. Vannevar certainly<br />
could've had some of Tesla's ideas on the rotating magnetic field used, and nothing from the<br />
Moore/Berlitz account rules that out, but this idea of Tesla running the operation as Al Bielek<br />
has posited, is, like all of the other material that Bielek has originated, pure fantasy of the most<br />
unsubstantiated sort. Tesla only seems to have tried to contribute his idea on the death ray to<br />
the Allies by all of the historical accounts that I've seen. Whether he was involved directly or not<br />
adds nothing to the story, and in fact I believe it has been used to throw people off of the real<br />
<strong>American</strong> <strong>Antigravity</strong>.Com Page 5 of 12
trail. After all, Tesla is sexy for the fringe science crowd. You mention Tesla and you<br />
automatically have tons of people nodding their heads, "oh yeah, I can see him involved. That's<br />
right. He was a genius. Super genius. And the gomiment got all his records after he died.<br />
Probably faked his death and took him away to serve in some underground lab. And he used to<br />
get those messages from Mars, too." and then it's off to the races. You've got no records left to<br />
check, and enough unbridled speculation to give the skeptics a field day and plenty of<br />
ammunition. Meanwhile, the Dr. Rinehart account gets ignored. Or covered-up like Sightings<br />
and The Unexplained did.<br />
As far as Vannevar being involved, I'm sure he probably knew about it and it had his and Rear<br />
Admiral Bowen's OK for it to proceed. I think that Vannevar was too busy with the Manhattan<br />
Project being developed to have had any direct involvement, though. But I'm sure he knew about<br />
it because he would have heard about it from von Neumann. The way things are looking I'd say<br />
that Ross Gunn, William Parsons, T. Townsend Brown, John von Neumann, Albert Einstein,<br />
Francis Bitter and a few others where the ones doing the work most often with Bowen probably<br />
in charge for the Navy. In the end, I'd say it was Einstein, von Neumann, Brown and Bitter<br />
involved, with Witmer having done analysis for radar invisiblity.<br />
As for other scientists, in my book I name names, give dates, and show records as to who would<br />
have been involved and why. That includes the true identity of Dr. Franklin Reno/Dr. Rinehart.<br />
AAG: For me, the "odd man out" in the Philadelphia Experiment story has always been<br />
Thomas Townsend Brown. It's probably because he's more recognizable for his work with the<br />
Biefeld-Brown Effect, which leads me to ask me if he was really involved, and if so, what his role<br />
might have been?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: That's so incredibly easy. The records, the records from his own files at the<br />
website about him (which are no longer there) as well as those in archives, show that for every<br />
major step that the project underwent, Thomas Townsend Brown was being assigned to work in<br />
that area. That's one of the glaring facts that Nick Pope completely misses in his book, The Hunt<br />
For Zero Point, which deals with the Philadelphia Experiment on a number of occasions. Then 6<br />
months after the project goes all wrong, Brown has a major nervous breakdown. One so bad that<br />
a "team of Naval doctors" have to see to his recovery. Then, after that, instead of being<br />
reassigned, while the country is still in the middle of a war for the survival of the free world, he's<br />
given a discharge! Other guys are being shot and blown-up and being patched-up and sent back<br />
out on the battlefield and Brown's never seen combat in his life - yet he's given a discharge after<br />
a nervous breakdown? I know of guys in Iraq, right now, who have been wounded, patched-up,<br />
sent home to be rehabilitated and they're back there now. So this is really extraordinary for this<br />
to have been done with Brown. You might not remember the incident, but in the movie Patton<br />
this guy is having an emotional breakdown in front of General Patton, due to combat fatigue or<br />
shell shock, and Patton slaps him and tells him to pull it together and that he's not going to<br />
stand for any cowards in his command. True event too. So, I'm expected to believe that after this<br />
"nervous breakdown" was over, that Brown doesn't just get a desk job but he's given a discharge<br />
altogether? 'C'mon. Give me a break!<br />
What caused the breakdown? Certainly not that weak excuse that's in the Moore/Berlitz book -<br />
'aw, he wasn't getting any of his pet projects done. Poor baby!' No. Brown was a smart, young,<br />
happy-go-lucky guy that was into science since he was a kid and had been assigned to research<br />
areas state-side and beyond. So whatever made him have that nervous breakdown had to be<br />
pretty traumatic - like seeing men killed and maimed from an experiment that he had a personal<br />
hand in. That makes sense. Brown in no way is the "odd man out". His record screams that he<br />
<strong>American</strong> <strong>Antigravity</strong>.Com Page 6 of 12
was inside the loop. In fact, it implies that it was the main thing that he did from 1940 on. He<br />
was certainly involved and he also never denied it.<br />
AAG: You've mentioned finding new evidence that Moore & Berlitz didn't publish. Was this a<br />
coverup for something?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: It was what they admit to in the book - leaving things out to protect "the status<br />
quo". I checked and everyone that I discovered connected to this project, or would've been or<br />
had some knowledge of it, that wasn't in the Moore/Berlitz book, was still alive when they were<br />
publishing it, including the real Dr. Rinehart, though they claim otherwise in his case.<br />
Unfortunately, they're all dead now. All accept for one who only knew of the real Dr. Rinehart<br />
but I have no proof that this man was involved with the project himself. I do, however, reveal<br />
who he is because of the confirmation that I recieved that he did in fact remember the name of<br />
the man that I tag as "Rinehart".<br />
AAG: Charles Berlitz had written extensively about the subject of the Bermuda Triangle<br />
before getting involved with William Moore's Philadelphia Experiment story. Admittedly, these<br />
are all stories related to maritime-folklore, but I'd wondered if Berlitz influence & reputation<br />
might not have clouded Moore's focus a bit. Any thoughts on Berlitz' role in this story?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: From what I've been told, Berlitz was behind the deleting of the sensitive material.<br />
As for his Bermuda Triangle influence, it had nothing to do with it. The connection between the<br />
Triangle and Projct Rainbow is simply pedestrian. They both have similar phenomena<br />
associated with them but those who have postulated that Rainbow was designed to take<br />
advantage of the geographical location of the Bermuda Triangle are like many others who have<br />
made various claims about the project - wrong. For the experiment to only work in a specific<br />
geographical region would have had no military usefulness at all and that's what this whole<br />
affair was about - defeating the Nazi and Imperial fleets, most of which weren't operating<br />
anywhere near the Bermuda Triangle. Primarily the only Nazi vessels, other than subs, were all<br />
operating in the North Sea and the European areas of the Murmansk Run.<br />
Likewise, any skeptical arguments trying to tie the two stories together in an attempt to cancel<br />
out the Philadelphia Experiment are erroneous, like 100% of the skeptical arguments against the<br />
story. In this case, as usual, it's wrong because it ignores the basic facts of the story and relies<br />
strictly on 100% circumstantial evidence, and rather weak evidence at that. Here's an example<br />
that I'm sure even skeptics might be able to understand - The Wright Brothers fly at Kitty Hawk<br />
and a skeptic, who is told of the story but hasn't seen the photos yet, says, "Bolderdash! Orville<br />
Wright himself said not long ago that man's ability to fly is over 1,000 year's out of our reach.<br />
Some fanciful newpaper reporter is just taking that myth about Icarus and giving it an up-todate<br />
dressin'-up by putting the Wright Brothers into it with some new fangled flying machine!"<br />
OK, so now let's play with history a little and say that their first flight goes horribly wrong and<br />
there's a crash and the plane is destroyed. Now we have a few eyewitnesses - who the skeptic can<br />
character assassinate or dismiss, as is their normal practice, the photos can be claimed to be<br />
fake and the whole thing can be written off as an urban myth unless someone attempts to try it<br />
again. But then let's say there's some kind of political pressure to keep people from trying to fly<br />
because it's just too dangerous and now you have a similar situation as with the story of Project<br />
Rainbow. The flight of the Wright Brothers would have been the truth, but it could also have<br />
been squashed if things had gone differently, and if the kind of skepticism were applied, the way<br />
it is today. The witnesses are discredited and it's left to someone else to eventually discover<br />
flight, even though it had actually already been done.<br />
<strong>American</strong> <strong>Antigravity</strong>.Com Page 7 of 12
As far as Moore is concerned, I can prove that at least Moore was on the same trail that I went<br />
down, because I found the evidence that supports it. That evidence is in my book and so is the<br />
proof that it was deleted from their book. Many people aren't aware of this but Berlitz had an<br />
intelligence background and probably there was some pressure applied for him to not take the<br />
story too far. Both Berlitz' intelligence connection and the information concerning his deleting<br />
pertinent facts, was discovered by Fred Houpt from Toronto Canada. I have confirmation of that<br />
information now, as well as another item of importance that Fred brought to my attention in<br />
1999.<br />
AAG: On the topic of physics, Corum suggested that the experiment might have accidentally<br />
tapped into a Torsion Effect, but his own 1994 replication was based on something more<br />
mundane: impedance-matching between a block of iron and the surrounding air. What are your<br />
thoughts about the physics involved with this experiment?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: I think Corum was right and it matches the whole idea of attempting a number of<br />
experiments. It completely matches the testimony from Dr. Rinehart. I think that some of<br />
Einstein's Unified Field Theory may have been involved but not in the way that people suggest -<br />
none of this accelerating atoms and other such nonsense. I have discovered that impedence<br />
matching was one of the research areas that was under consideration but a method that would<br />
be effective against all available frequencies was being sought after.<br />
AAG: I've always thought that the Hutchison-Effect at least sets a precendent for considering<br />
some aspects of the Philadelphia Experiment effects themselves-- such as maybe Allende's<br />
claims about "the becoming invisible" and "men melting into decks". However, Allende also<br />
additionally claimed that men were catching on fire, walking through walls into nothingness,<br />
and getting stuck in a "deep freeze" that he sounds from his claim like being stuck in-between<br />
two dimensions. Allende later confessed to making up the stories for these last 3 effects, but<br />
continued to maintain that the first set of effects were quite real. What's your opinion on the<br />
effects that really occurred in this experiment?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: I know what's possible. I know that Allende seems to have come upon a ship that<br />
was suffering from the after-effects of an experiment. The Hutchison Effect certainly verifies<br />
some of what could have happened in addition to the radiation burn injuries that are listed in<br />
the classified report that Naval personnel have told me privately that they've seen. Other than<br />
that, I've never tried to make Allende out to be a major witness because it's clear that he was<br />
lying about seeing the ship go invisible. He got those details from scuttlebutt from those who<br />
were involved, just like Robert Beckwith clearly overheard scuttlebutt about an early version of<br />
the testing for it at the Navy Underwater Sound Laboratory at Fort Trumbell and then<br />
embellished it with his own nonsense. In my book, I put it all together seamlessly, from the<br />
Allende account to the Rinehart interview to how it all began, was developed, who else was<br />
involved, seems to have been involved and could have been involved, why, how, where, and then<br />
the aftermath and beyond.<br />
AAG: Since I've drawn a comparison to the Hutchison-Effect, I should note that Hutchison<br />
claims a number of effects not reported in the Philadelphia Experiment, such as levitation. I'm<br />
wondering if you've heard evidence for additional effects that may have been unknown to<br />
Allende?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: No, I haven't.<br />
<strong>American</strong> <strong>Antigravity</strong>.Com Page 8 of 12
AAG: Speaking more pragmatically, Corum diligently noted that high-intensity magnetic<br />
fields may cause Purkinje patters, which are a type of optical-stimulation that may cause<br />
hallucinations. Could that explain any of the anecdotal evidence relating to this experiment?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: Yes, the hallucinations that the crew saw about the aliens, if that part of the story<br />
is even true. It certanly would've contributed to their overall psychological disorientation.<br />
However, those hallucinations are a rather small fraction of the account. They don't explain<br />
away anything else about the optical invisibility or even if teleportation was involved. The fact<br />
remains that optical invisibility, as it was described by anecdotal accounts, matches what Dr.<br />
Rinehart claims they were attempting and I've been able to prove the scientific basis for that -<br />
simultaneously disproving the Office of Naval Research letter that says that such experiments<br />
are only possible in the relam of science fiction. When a person has such an unusual story and<br />
then you have scientific and credible evidence to support it, a professional dosen't go trying to<br />
explain it away with assumptions about hallucinations unless they're an idiot or a skeptic, which<br />
in many cases are one and the same thing, from my professional experience.<br />
AAG: Carlos Allende mentioned a physicist on the project named "Dr. Franklin Reno" (aka<br />
"Dr. Rinehart") that author William Moore later tracked down. This individual provided some<br />
detailed descriptions of performing calculations to "bend light around a ship", but little is known<br />
about the actual character. What are your thoughts on this Dr. Rinehart?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: I found him by looking for him the way that Moore would've have done it. Gerold<br />
Schelm helped by developing a sort of "suspects list". I immediately saw the man, that I already<br />
suspected as being Rinehart, on that list and proceeded my investigation from there. Everything<br />
matched-up. Amazingly so. The readers of my book will be shocked by the highly detailed<br />
account that I present which contributes to the story in ways that no one has ever suspected, but<br />
support it completely with well documented evidence. The idea that Dr. Rinehart was the NRL's<br />
Lou Gebhard as described in the hoax paper 50 Years After Einstein: The Failure of the Unified<br />
Field at http://www.aetherometry.com/unified_field/uft_convergence.html is laugh. The<br />
entire idea of John von Neuman being the real Dr. Rinehart is a complete crock that Al Bielek<br />
made-up, just like he's made up every single detail that he's brought to the story. One rare item<br />
that I know that most don't is that at some of his lectures, Bielek would show a photo of Von<br />
Neumann and then show a photo of the old radio guy that is described in the Montauk Books as<br />
being von Neumann - still alive. He tried to point out certain physical characteristics as proof<br />
that it was von Neumann. I saw this presentation in 1996. I could tell they weren't the same<br />
man. Not even close. You can compare the photos yourself at<br />
http://bielek.com/ab_albielek.htm , the first two about midway down the page. Von Neumann<br />
was a Hungarian Jew and the man in the photo next to him doesn't have any of the same<br />
features of von Neumann. Von Neumann doesn't have classic Jewish features either but they<br />
aren't the fine, chisled features of the man he's being compared to. Now here's the trick - scroll<br />
up to the top of the page and you'll see Einstein, Tesla, Von Neumann and Alexander Duncan<br />
Cameron in that order. Compare Von Neumann to Alexander Cameron. They look nothing alike.<br />
Now compare the Cameron photo to the one of the aged "Von Neumann". Same ears, same long<br />
thin nose, the deep set eyes. Now go five pictures down from where you started originally to<br />
where it says "1969 - Alexander with son Duncan II in Sarasota Florida." on the left side. Blow<br />
that pic up and compare the man on the left to the one of the aged "Von Neumann". It sure looks<br />
like the same guy and that guy is Alexander Duncan Cameron. So you have a case of Bielek<br />
passing off phoney evidence once again.<br />
Oh, wait. Here's something interesting - that little comparison thing I had you do with the Von<br />
Neumann and Alexander Cameron pics from the row of pics with Einstein and Tesla? Well, you<br />
can't do that from the latest version of the web site that I gave you because they have text<br />
<strong>American</strong> <strong>Antigravity</strong>.Com Page 9 of 12
unning across their faces. I was looking at a print out of an ealier version. You have to go to<br />
http://web.archive.org/web/20020802082021/http://www.bielek.com/ab_albielek.htm to do<br />
it. Hmmm. Is this a coincidence or evidence of a literal 'cover-up'? Who knows? I doubt it, but I<br />
am amused by it, however.<br />
AAG: I touched briefly on Torsion-Fields earlier, but I'd like to get your opinions on the<br />
applications for this technology. What, if anything, can we learn from the Philadelphia<br />
Experiment in terms of new technologies?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: I can only respond in terms of my own research as a R&D engineer. Invisibility<br />
mirages are certainly possible, and I'm not talking about those silly camera/wrap-around screen<br />
systems either. Of course radar invisibility and at least a direction for teleportation research.<br />
From my own lab I've been working at times on electromagnetic fields that induce similar effects<br />
as what James Woodard has been talking about at<br />
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/massfluc/index.htm . My fields are not created the<br />
same way as he describes, however, probably why mine worked and his haven't so far. They have<br />
been known to induce propellantless acceleration that is also invisible to radar and we have a<br />
video tape showing that. In fact, there's an entire DVD and TV special in the works surrounding<br />
this development. There were also a number of unofficial tests involved with police officers<br />
using radar guns. The tests had to be unofficial because the idea that such a device could exist<br />
and be installed on a car, enabling it to speed without detection, just totally freaked out law<br />
enforcement and they didn't want to be officially connected to any tests that proved it was<br />
viable, for obvious reasons. So I had to use some of my police connections, off the record.<br />
Aside from the radar invisibility the connection between my device and Project Rainbow seems<br />
to be found in the idea of Einstein's Unified Field Theory. The UFT has been greatly<br />
misunderstood because it has been compared to a GUT or Grand Unified Theory. It was not<br />
intended that way at all. Einstein's UFT was an attempt to unify gravity, electricity and<br />
magnetism and not gravity, electricity, magnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, which has<br />
been the way it is portrayed quite often in the mainstream science community. To keep this from<br />
becoming a science lecture, let me just use practical applications as an example - my device, the<br />
STDTS, seems to cause a vehicle, that is already in motion, to move faster without the<br />
consumption of additional fuel, which is the cause for its being in motion. The STDTS does this<br />
via the application of a specially modulated electromagnetic field generated near the front of the<br />
vehicle. All tests show that what seems to be happening is that space is being contracted near the<br />
front of the vehicle and expanded out the rear. That would explain why there is no additional<br />
fuel consumption required for the increased velocity. It also explains why there is no increase in<br />
the speed indicated by the speedometer yet all inside and outside clocks indicate that the<br />
elapsed time says that the vehicle was going faster. So we have an electromagnetic cause for<br />
something that is usually attributed to gravity - warping space. Likewise, bending light is also<br />
something that is attributed to gravity, as has been insinuated by people discussing the<br />
Philadelphia Experiment, but clearly, in both cases, were talking about a tremendous amount of<br />
gravity having to be involved and yet that is not the case.<br />
Like many things associated with Einstein, there are flaws which then appear to be only half<br />
wrong. For example - the EPR paradox. Einstein said that quantum mechanics was wrong<br />
because if it were right then entangled particles could be separated by the expanse of the<br />
universe and a measurement on one would still result in the other responding in the exact same<br />
instant and that would be a violation of the relativity. Well, it turned out that that's exactly what<br />
happens, and so Einstein was wrong but he was still right because by all accounts it seems that<br />
this signalling at a distance is really saying that the entaglement process is never broken, no<br />
matter how far "apart" the particles seem to be separated. So it's not really a violation of<br />
relativity.<br />
<strong>American</strong> <strong>Antigravity</strong>.Com Page 10 of 12
Similarly, if special electromagnetic fields induce what appears to be gravitic effects, it doesn't<br />
mean that it's actually gravity the way that we know it. There is no complete theory of gravity<br />
that explains everything, so there's still much that scientists have to learn. But what the<br />
Hutchinson Effect shows, and what seems to be happening with my STDTS, is that there are<br />
other windows to the forces that seem connected to Einstein's UFT. Only further research will<br />
reveal how far these forces may be explored and what the results can be. But in my book I reveal<br />
for the first time anywhere, how this idea applies directly to Project Rainbow and how it is<br />
supported by information that was leaked to Carlos Allende by Dr. Rinehart and revealed in<br />
letters to Robert Goerman, who in turn, completely missed their significance.<br />
AAG: Most people believe that the Philadelphia Experiment was a one-time thing, and that<br />
the results were disasterous enough that it was never attempted again. However, there's been a<br />
persistent rumor that the Navy might have revisited this experiment in 1947, and other rumors<br />
suggest that parts of this research were underway even into the 1950's. Do you think there's any<br />
truth to this?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: The 1947 date, I believe, is from Allende which is when he says that he heard that<br />
the ship teleported. He later changed that, in a letter to Robert Goerman, I believe, and said that<br />
it happned in 1944. As an aside, I believe that that's probably where Beckwith got his dates for<br />
his version of the story, that it happened in 1944 and not 1943. My research shows that the<br />
events that Beckwith bases other details of his story on actually took place earlier than 1943 and<br />
were part of the first large scale testing of Project Rainbow. It also could be that Beckwith just<br />
changed the dates or doesn't have a very good memory.<br />
In any case, what I know is that there were tests before the one using the Eldridge and that there<br />
seems to have been other ships that were used for testing as well, in 1943 and earlier. The<br />
Timmerman may have been tested in the 1950s and used the cover of trying out special engines<br />
to explain the wacked-out fields that witnesses saw. However, it seems that the real research<br />
after that went towards aircraft based on T. Townsend Brown's work. Why make-up all this<br />
hooey about Biefeld-Brown not working when it does, unless you don't want anyone playing<br />
around with it because it can lead you to more stable radar and optical cloaking? There's alot<br />
more to this whole Brown thing that even Nick Cook knew and he missed quite a bit. Odd too,<br />
because he started out with the same Brown material that I did and had the Russian plasma<br />
sheath information as well. I was able to get my leads that me to where I got what I learned<br />
about the Russian plasma sheath tech from his Jane's Defense Weekly article, in fact. In double<br />
checking my records, it appears that he's the one at Jane's Defense Weekly that put me in<br />
contact with the Russians that confirmed the story. This of course led me to more evidence<br />
about why there has been such an overwhelming effort to keep this experiment so covered-up. If<br />
Nick had been really looking, he could have found the same thing. I guess he took a wrong turn<br />
somewhere...<br />
Also, my book settles once and for all, the whole matter of Professor Biefeld being real or not<br />
and who he really was. Vallee had said as much as the man never existed, trying to call T.<br />
Townsend Brown's credibility into question. Oops! Vallee was very, very sloppy. Actually, he was<br />
just doing his job at the time, unfortunately for him. He was put up to it, from all accounts that I<br />
heard. Aviary business, you know. I used to really like him when I was younger. I saw him as the<br />
Jacques Cousteau of UFOs in a way. Then I later learned how dirty this business really is and<br />
picked the side of the idealist. I don't have anything personal against him, it's just that that little<br />
disinfo piece of his had a lot of people fooled, right when I just discovered that refracted light<br />
causes invisibility mirages when properly manipulated, just like Dr. Rinehart said. So there was<br />
no way I was going to sit by, especially after I investigated the Dudgeon account and then saw<br />
them both on Mysterious Forces Beyond, and let that stand as this so-called "good piece of<br />
<strong>American</strong> <strong>Antigravity</strong>.Com Page 11 of 12
esearch" as Mike Corbin of ParaNet called it. No one checked it, that's why they were fooled.<br />
There was no evidence presented to look at, just taking their word for everything. When I found<br />
the info verifying Dr. Biefeld, I knew that Vallee's piece wasn't even a good piece of disinfo.<br />
Sloppy, sloppy work. But like I said, it's been said that he was put up to it. I even tone it all down<br />
in the book. I don't want to beat-up on the man. I want to beat-up on skeptics and the media.<br />
But I do want people to know that the Dudgeon account is completely baseless. They can<br />
speculate on the motives themselves. It's the facts that matter, and the facts are that Dudgeon's<br />
account is full of holes that are historically inaccurate and are discredited even by U.S. Naval<br />
records. Like I said. Sloppy.<br />
AAG: I'd also heard another rumor suggesting that the Philadelphia Experiment may have<br />
even had some relationship to UFO's -- as amazing as it sounds, this rumor claimed that this<br />
technology may have served as a beacon for ET, and might have even triggered the UFO-craze of<br />
the 1950's. Have you heard anything about this, or is it just more mythology?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: The UFO connection is tenuous and adds no credibility nor takes any away from<br />
the story except to say that Bielek introduces the idea that aliens were behind the experiment in<br />
the first place so that a 40 year "wide" hole could be opened in spacetime to allow easier access<br />
to our planet. That, of course, is a patent lie. It doesn't even make any sense. Otherwise, I have<br />
no evidence of UFO involvement. Stanton Friedman is the one credited with saying that perhaps<br />
the event became an interdimensional beacon due to its creation of "electromagnetic<br />
oversplash". Maybe so. That's not my area and it would be hard to prove beyond just sheer<br />
speculation.<br />
AAG: Let's finish with your book -- can you provide us with any details or contact info, and<br />
possibly some insight on when the book is coming out & where the public can get it?<br />
<strong>Barnes</strong>: The book will be available June 22nd. The CD will be out around the same time. It<br />
will be announced nearly everywhere as well as where they can get it.<br />
<strong>Marshall</strong> <strong>Barnes</strong> is an independent researcher with decades of experience studying high-energy<br />
physics & anomalous technologies.<br />
<strong>American</strong> <strong>Antigravity</strong>.Com Page 12 of 12